Larkem v. French Institute Alliance Francaise

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 7, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-02795·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NASSER LARKEM, Plaintiff, 21-CV-2795 (LTS) -against- ORDERTO AMEND FRENCH INSTITUTE ALLIANCE FRANÇAISE,et al., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Title VII); 42 U.S.C. §1981; andthe New York State and City Human Rights Laws. He alleges that his employer discriminated against him based on his race, religion, and national origin.Plaintiff paid the filing fees to initiate this action. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grantsPlaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court has the authority to dismiss a complaint, even when the plaintiff has paid the filing fee, if it determines that the action is frivolous, Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (citing Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 16-17 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (holding that Court of Appeals has inherent authority to dismiss frivolous appeal)), or that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999).The Court is obliged, however,to construe pro se pleadings liberally,Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this action against his employer, the French Institute Alliance Française (French Institute), and three individuals who worked at the French Institute: Ellen Casey, Marie- Monique Steckel, and Sarah Zafrani-Sidi (collectively, “Defendants”).He alleges that Defendantsdiscriminated against him because of his race (“North African”), religion (Islam),

and national origin (“French of North African origin”). (ECF 1, at 3.) The following facts are taken from the complaint, verbatim: Ellen Casey retaliated against me when taking money away from my paycheck, and asking me to complete administrative and follow-up tasks that were not paid. She retaliated against me after the Conflicts of Interest Board released an order of payment for a fine at the beginning of the pandemics, even though this had already been paid through volunteering, and despite the fact that the Governor of New York suspended all agency orders. Sarah Safrani-Sidi received notice that Ellen Casey arbitrarily removed money from my account, but did not take any measures. Marie-Monique Steckel used the pretext of remote learning to order that Nasser Larkem be asked to work outside of his attributions. When Marie- Monique Steckel met with Nasser Larkem in mid-2018, she specifically said she would retaliate against Nasser Larkem, in front of the head of the Human Resources at the time. (Id.at 5.) Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and received a right-to-sue letter. (ECF 1-2.) He timely filed this complaint. DISCUSSION A. Federal Claims Plaintiff brings federal claims of discrimination under Title VII and § 1981, but he fails to state a claim under either statute. Title VII provides that “[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ...to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).Section 1981 prohibits discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts, including employment contracts, “on account of [a person’ s] race, ancestry, or ethnic characteristics.” Zemsky v. City of New York, 821 F.2d 148, 150 (2d Cir. 1987). These antidiscrimination provisions prohibit employers from mistreating an individual

because of the individual’s protected characteristics, Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2007), or retaliating against an employee who has opposed any practice made unlawful by those statutes, see Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t, 555 U.S. 271, 276 (2009) (holding that conduct is protected when it “confront[s],” “resist[s],” or “withstand[s]” unlawful actions). Mistreatment at work that occurs for a reason other than an employee’s protected characteristic or opposition to unlawful conduct is not actionable under these federal antidiscrimination statutes. See Chukwuka v. City of New York, 513 F. App’x 34, 36 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Brown v. Henderson, 257 F.3d 246, 252 (2d Cir. 2001)). At the pleading stage in an employment discrimination action, “a plaintiff must plausibly

allege that (1) the employer took adverse employment action against him, and (2) his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor in the employment decision.” Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72, 86 (2d Cir. 2015). The plaintiff “may do so by alleging facts that directly show discrimination or facts that indirectly show discrimination by giving rise to a plausible inference of discrimination.” Id.at 87. Plaintiff does not allege any facts suggesting that his race, religion, or national origin played any role in Defendants’ treatment of him. In fact, Plaintiff does not mention any of his protected characteristics when describing what occurred at his workplace.Plaintiff’s allegations are thereforeinsufficient to state a claim under Title VII and §1981.In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court grants him leave to file an amended complaint to cure these deficiencies.See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123–24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). B. Leave to Amend Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to provide more facts about his claims.

In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant. Plaintiff should include all of the information in the amended complaint that Plaintiff wants the Court to consider in deciding whether the amended complaint states a claim for relief.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Larkem v. French Institute Alliance Francaise, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Larkem v. French Institute Alliance Francaise (Larkem v. French Institute Alliance Francaise) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.
526 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Chukwuka v. City of New York
513 F. App'x 34 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Patane v. Clark
508 F.3d 106 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School District
801 F.3d 72 (Second Circuit, 2015)
Zemsky v. City of New York
821 F.2d 148 (Second Circuit, 1987)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)